Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:42:55.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Walnuts to Simulated Drift Rates of Bispyribac-Sodium, Bensulfuron-Methyl, and Propanil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2018

Mariano F. Galla ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Bradley D. Hanson
Mariano F. Galla
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Professor and Cooperative Extension Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Bradley D. Hanson
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Kassim Al-Khatib, Professor and Cooperative Extension Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences MS4, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616. (E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was established to study symptoms, growth and yield of 2-year-old walnut trees exposure to simulated drift of several herbicides commonly used in rice production. Bispyribac-sodium, bensulfuron-methyl, and propanil were applied at four rates representing 0.5%, 1%, 3% and 10% of the normal use rate in rice (45, 70, and 6725 g ai ha−1, for the three herbicides respectively). Symptoms started to appear approximately 7 days after application (DAT) and peaked 28 DAT. At that time, bispyribac-sodium caused greater injury at low drift rates (6% and 15% visual injury for 0.5% and 1% rate, respectively) compared to bensulfuron-methyl and propanil. Bispyribac-sodium also appeared to slow walnut shoot elongation compared to nontreated trees; however, no yield reductions were observed either in the year after drift exposure. The effect of bispyribac-sodium simulated drift on the yield and nut quality in the year of drift exposure was evaluated in a separate study on 3-year-old walnut trees. While no yield or nut quality reductions were observed, a linear correlation between rate of bispyribac-sodium and color, an important quality factor, was found: higher herbicide rates tended to be associated with darker kernel color. Bispyribac-sodium may damage nearby walnut orchards if drifted at significant amounts. However, it is unlikely that in a field situation bispyribac-sodium would drift at high enough levels to cause the symptoms observed from the 10% use rates in this study.

Keywords

Prashant Jha, Montana State UniversityCrop injuryherbicide driftbispyribac-sodiumbensulfuron-methylpropanilrice, Oryza sativa L.walnut, Juglans regia L
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 410 - 415
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Abramoff, MD, Magalhaes, PJ, Ram, SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 11:36–42 Google Scholar
Ali, A, Streibig, JC, Duus, J, Andreasen, C (2013) Use of image analysis to assess color response on plants caused by herbicide application. Weed Technol 27:604–611 Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K (2015) Herbicide Symptoms. http://herbicidesymptoms.ipm.ucanr.edu/. Accessed: February 12, 2017Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R, Fuerst, E (1992) Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol 6:975–979 Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R, Fuerst, E (1993) Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) response to simulated herbicide drift. Weed Technol 7:97–102 Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Tamhane, A (1999) Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) response to low rates of selected foliar- and soil- applied sulfonylurea and growth regulator herbicide. Weed Technol 13:753–758 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016) 2014–2015 California Agricultural Statistic Review. Sacramento, California: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 126 pGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, M, Al-Khatib, K, Felsot, A, Parker, R, Kadir, S (1995) Effects of simulated chlorsulfuron drift on fruit yield and quality of sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.). Environ Toxicol Chem 14:537–544 Google Scholar
Boutin, C, Lee, H, Peart, E, Batchelor, P, Maguire, R (2000) Effects of the sulfonylurea herbicide metsulfuron methyl on growth and reproduction of five wetland and terrestrial plant species. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2532–2541 Google Scholar
CalPIP (2016) California Pesticide Information Portal, California Department of Pesticide Regulation. http://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm. Accessed: February 14, 2017Google Scholar
de Vida, F, Laca, E, Mackill, D, Fernández, G, Fischer, A (2006) Relating rice traits to weed competitiveness and yield: a path analysis. Weed Sci 54:1122–1131 Google Scholar
[DFA] Dried Fruit Adscociation of California (2016) Walnut Inspection Manual. Sacramento, CA: Dried Fruit Association of California. 75 pGoogle Scholar
Fischer, AJ, Ateh, CM, Bayer, DE, Hill, JE (2000) Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa fields. Weed Sci 48:225–230 Google Scholar
Fletcher, J, Pfleeger, T, Ratsch, H, Hayes, R (1996) Potential impact of low levels of chlorsulfuron and other herbicides on growth and yield of non-target plants. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1189–1196 Google Scholar
Herberich, E, Sikorski, J, Hothorn, T (2010) A robust procedure for comparing multiple means under heteroscedasticity in unbalanced designs. PloS One, 5. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009788 Google Scholar
Kjær, C, Strandberg, M, Erlandsen, M (2006) Effects on hawthorn the year after simulated spray drift. Chemosphere 63:853–859 Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB, Christensen, RHB (2016) lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R Package, version 2.0-33. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. Accessed: July 1, 2016Google Scholar
Labavitch, JM, Polito, VS (1985) Fruit growth and development. Pages 90–94 in Ramos DE, ed. Walnut Production Manual. Oakland, CA: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3373Google Scholar
Olson, WH, Coates, WW (1985) Maturation, harvesting, and nut quality. Pages 172–174 in Ramos DE ed, Walnut Production Manual. Oakland, CA: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3373Google Scholar
Pedroso, RM, Al-Khatib, K, Abdallah, I, Alarcón-Reverte, R, Fischer, AJ (2016) Resistance to propanil in ricefield bulrush (Schoenoplectus mucronatus) is conferred by a psba mutation, Val219 to Ile. Weed Sci 64:562–569 Google Scholar
Polito, VS (1985) Flower Differentiation and Pollination. Pages 81–86 in Ramos DE ed, Walnut Orchard Management. Oakland, CA: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3373 Google Scholar
Ramos, DE (1997) Walnut Production Manual. Oakland, CA: University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources. 319 pGoogle Scholar
Rana, S, Norsworthy, J, Scott, R (2014) Soybean sensitivity to drift rates of imazosulfuron. Weed Technol 28:443–453 Google Scholar
Sabatier, S, Barthélémy, D (2001) Bud structure in relation to shoot morphology and position on the vegetative annual shoots of Juglans regia L. (Juglandaceae). Ann Bot 87:117–123 Google Scholar
Sabatier, S, Barthélémy, D, Ducousso, I (2003) Periods of organogenesis in mono‐ and bicyclic annual shoots of Juglans regia L. (Juglandaceae). Ann Bot 92:231–238 Google Scholar
Strand, LL (2003) Integrated Pest Management for Walnuts. Oakland, CA: University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication. No. 3270 136 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2016) 2015 California Walnut Acreage Report 2015. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. 4 pGoogle Scholar